On January 25, 2016, four years after the major shift that Miller v. Alabama created in juvenile law, the Supreme Court did it again. In a 6-3 decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, SCOTUS greatly impacted the landscape of juvenile law along with the lives of hundreds of individuals sentenced to a lifetime of prison as young people. The court ruled that Miller retroactively gives juvenile offenders the ability to show that they are “not beyond rehabilitation to become a law-abiding individual” at the time of sentencing.

The much-anticipated present change in juvenile law altered the landscape of the firm stance taken in Miller on June 25, 2012 pertaining to the incarceration of juvenile offenders. At that time, SCOTUS held that sentencing a juvenile homicide offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole was in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. The Court’s stance in Miller rounded out a trio of Supreme Court decisions setting up key sentencing protections for juvenile offenders, the first decision was Roper v. Simmons in 2005. In Roper, the Court held that the application of capital punishment and the death penalty was a violation of the Eighth Amendment as applied to juvenile sentencing. Graham v. Florida, decided in 2010, protected juveniles convicted of non-homicidal offenses from being sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole under the Eighth Amendment. Continuing its protective trend under the umbrella of the Eighth Amendment, SCOTUS extended the protection identified in Graham to juvenile homicide offenders in Miller.

Read on to learn more about the Miller decision, the changes the Court made on January 25, 2016 in Montgomery v. Louisiana, and what is in store for juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole prior to June 25, 2012.

A Tale of Tried Teens: Miller v. Alabama

In November 1999, a 14-year-old Kuntrell Jackson (Teen #1) decided to accompany two friends to rob a video store. On the way to the store, Jackson learned that one of his friends had concealed and brought with him a sawed off shot gun in his coat sleeve. Jackson made the decision to stay outside of the store when his friends went in. Ultimately, the store clerk refused to give the young boys the money they demanded and she was shot and killed.

Under Arkansas law, 14-year-old Jackson was charged as an adult for capital felony murder and aggravated robbery. He was convicted of both crimes. A motion was filed to transfer the case to juvenile court, but was subsequently denied by the court and affirmed on appeal. Further, a habeas corpus petition was filed on his behalf after the Roper decision, but was dismissed. While the ruling was on appeal, SCOTUS made the Graham decision. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal based on both Roper and Graham.

Subsequently, 14-year-old Evan Miller (Teen #2), a troubled young boy bouncing in and out of foster homes who had attempted suicide four times already, was about to have his life changed. Miller and his friend followed Cole Cannon, a drug dealer, to his trailer where they smoked marijuana and played drinking games. When Cannon passed out, the boys stole his wallet and took out $300 to split, but Cannon woke up and a fight ensued. Miller struck Cannon repeatedly with a baseball bat. The boys came back later and lit the trailer on fire, ultimately killing Cannon. Pursuant to Alabama law, Miller had to be charged as a juvenile, but the District Attorney was granted a transfer to adult court. Miller was charged and convicted of murder in the course of arson, which carries a mandatory minimum of life without parole. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals confirmed the sentence and the Alabama Supreme Court denied review.

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and agreed to review both cases together, as one.

In its rationalization, the Court immediately established that children are “constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing” in the sense that they have diminished culpability and have a greater capacity for reform in the future. Further, the Court emphasized key points from Roper and Graham, identifying that children lack maturity and appreciation for responsibility leading to potential reckless behavior and are more vulnerable and impressionable by negative influences. Therefore, a fundamental difference exists when analyzing adult culpability for sentencing purposes and children. For Eighth Amendment purposes, the Court viewed age as a relevant factor for sentencing.

The Court ultimately held that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.”

Montgomery v. Louisiana

Now, for the case that was just decided in 2016, we need to flash back to 1963 when 17-year-old Henry Montgomery killed a deputy sheriff in East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Montgomery was found guilty and sentenced to death. Shortly thereafter, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed his conviction finding that the public nature of the trial and public prejudice prevented Montgomery from having a fair trial.

The case was retried and the jury returned a verdict of “guilty without capital punishment,” which required the sentence to be life without the possibility of parole.

Flash forward to when Henry Montgomery is 69-years-old. He has spent the last 53 years in custody and behind bars, even facing the emotional journey that comes with being sentenced to death at one point. Up until 2012, Henry Montgomery was prepared to die in prison until a little bit of hope cloaked in the form of Miller v. Alabama surfaced to light.

Most relevant to Montgomery’s case is the fact that the Miller decision noted the importance of youth and age on an offense: “by making youth (and all that accompanies it) irrelevant to imposition of that harshest prison sentence, mandatory life without parole poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment.” Thus, the disconnect between a juvenile offense and the harsh punishments of life in prison without the opportunity for parole created cruel and excessive penalties for individuals unable to fully understand the culpability of their actions.

Following the Miller decision, Montgomery filed a motion for collateral review on the basis that life without parole for a juvenile offender constituted an illegal sentence. The trial court denied Montgomery’s motion on the ground that the Miller Court did not make a decision that was to be applied retroactively–or applied to cases that were conducted and offenders that had received final sentences prior to June 25, 2012. The Louisiana Supreme Court subsequently denied Montgomery’s application for a supervisory writ.

Upon review by the Supreme Court, they held that Miller was, in fact, retroactive, stating “like other substantive rules, Miller is retroactive because it necessarily carr[ies] a significant risk that a defendant – here, the vast majority of juvenile offenders – faces a punishment that the law cannot impose upon him.” The Court recognized the grave risk in disproportionate sentencing for which detention may be in violation of the Constitution on January 25, 2016.

How Does This Affect Other Juvenile Homicide Offenders?

The Supreme Court’s ruling on January 25, 2016 opened the door to hundreds of miracles. While it did not give all juveniles sentenced to prison for life without parole prior to June 25, 2012 a free pass, it gave them the right to re-sentencing hearings, if they are able to provide proof of rehabilitation, change, and evidence of good behavior during their time behind bars. It will be up to the states to review the case and make a decision as to whether the individual may be released or resentenced under the new Supreme Court holding.

This ruling was considered a win for juvenile law advocates who have been fighting to give a second chance at life to those individuals that entered prison as young teens and have only know life as an incarcerated person for twenty, thirty, even fifty years. They were overjoyed at the victory in the form of applicable retroactivity.

However, it does not come without criticism. Since the Supreme Court reviewed the case from a state court and took a moment to note that Montgomery has, in fact, turned his life around in the last 53 years, they did not and could not rule on that basis. The state controls his release. While Montgomery is likely to be released or in some way benefit from this case outcome, other juvenile inmates could be in trouble if Louisiana amends its state laws regarding post-conviction relief. Louisiana could flex its state muscle and amend its laws to prohibit post-conviction review of cases based on federal, rather than state law. In that case, any individual within that state that was sentenced to life in prison without parole as a juvenile would not have access to a resentencing hearing. Currently, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Michigan have the highest amount of juveniles sentences to life without parole. Only time will tell what action Louisiana and other states with similar laws will opt to do.

Resources

Primary

Supreme Court of the United States: Montgomery v. Louisiana

Additional

Cornell University Law School – Legal Information Institute: Miller v. Alabama 

Cornell University Law School – Legal Information Institute: Romper v. Simmons

Cornell University Law School – Legal Information Institute: Graham v. Florida

SCOTUSblog: Further Limit on Life Sentences for Youthful Offenders

 MLive: The Supreme Court Just Gave Juvenile Lifers a Shot at Parole

 Juvenile Law Center: Montgomery v. Louisiana

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Juveniles with Life Sentences: Will They Get Second Chances Thanks to SCOTUS? appeared first on Law Street.

Aaron Hernandez was found guilty yesterday of the first-degree murder of Odin L. Lloyd. Hernandez, a former tight end for the New England Patriots, will serve life in prison without the chance of parole. The legal troubles aren’t over for Hernandez, however, as there are still two more murder charges for the former star. The high profile nature of these cases does now beg a question: how did a man with such a bright spotlight shone on him manage to keep his criminal behaviors in the dark for so long?

Hernandez’s past is often described as a troubled one. He grew up in Bristol, Connecticut, was known to run with bad crowds from time to time, and other members of his family had relatively consistent run-ins with the law. But Hernandez’s talent on the football field always seemed to propel him forward–he shattered Connecticut state records, was very successful playing as a Gator at the University of Florida, and then was a fourth-round draft pick for the New England Patriots. By the time he was arrested he’d made millions of dollars and was still young enough to have many good years in the NFL ahead of him.

He was the “pride” of his small town. But he’s also a murderer–he’s now been found guilty of shooting one man seemingly in cold blood, and it’s looking pretty likely he’ll get convicted in the 2012 murders of Daniel Abreu and Safiro Furtado. Hernandez allegedly shot them after Abreu bumped into him in a club and caused Hernandez to spill his drink.

There are really only two possibilities for what happened here. One is that he was such a brilliant manipulator that he managed to hide his violent tendencies from those around him. The other seems unlikely, although it’s not a completely outlandish theory. Boston.com columnist Bill Speros wrote an op-ed in which he alleged that Hernandez is an undiagnosed psychopath. An interview from right after the Boston murders seems to lend at least some evidence to that theory. He joked and laughed with the media, saying that his summer was “private” but he “still had some fun.” If he did indeed murder Abreu and Furtado, the fact that he could be so callous and removed just 11 days later certainly is a concerning sign.

I think there’s a more likely scenario, however, and that’s that there were plenty of warning signs, but that they were flat out ignored because of his star status. Take an oft-cited incident when he was in Gainesville, for example. He went out with some of his former teammates, got into a dispute over a check, and ended up punching a bouncer in the face. One of his teammates on the Patriots, Tully Banta-Cain, said in 2010:

A lot of guys come into the NFL haunted by the past. Some guys overcome it and some continue to be haunted throughout their careers if they’re not able to disassociate themselves from certain people or certain atmospheres. Aaron may have fallen victim to that.

Aaron Hernandez spent his life thus far with people who were willing to look out for him because they saw promise, or because they saw that he was trying to overcome a “troubled” background. But in an atmosphere like that, it seems like he got away with a lot and those close to him let a lot of things slide.

That wouldn’t be unheard of. The Steubenville rape scandal a few years back, for example, showed an almost textbook example of many people in a small town willing to forgive horrid crimes because of who the perpetrators were.

No one will ever really know how Hernandez–a man who ostensibly could have had a very bright future–ended up as a murderer. But one thing is certain: he’s now going to pay the price.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aaron Hernandez: Sheltered by His Own Talent? appeared first on Law Street.